From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
john.hubbard@gmail.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Benvenuti <benve@cisco.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@intel.com>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@intel.com>,
Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@nvidia.com>,
Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] mm: introduce put_user_page*(), placeholder versions
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 02:03:23 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190319090322.GE7485@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190319153644.GB26099@quack2.suse.cz>
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 04:36:44PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 19-03-19 17:29:18, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:14:16AM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 09:47:24AM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 03:04:17PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 01:36:33PM -0800, john.hubbard@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
> > > > > > index f84e22685aaa..37085b8163b1 100644
> > > > > > --- a/mm/gup.c
> > > > > > +++ b/mm/gup.c
> > > > > > @@ -28,6 +28,88 @@ struct follow_page_context {
> > > > > > unsigned int page_mask;
> > > > > > };
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +typedef int (*set_dirty_func_t)(struct page *page);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +static void __put_user_pages_dirty(struct page **pages,
> > > > > > + unsigned long npages,
> > > > > > + set_dirty_func_t sdf)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + unsigned long index;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + for (index = 0; index < npages; index++) {
> > > > > > + struct page *page = compound_head(pages[index]);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + if (!PageDirty(page))
> > > > > > + sdf(page);
> > > > >
> > > > > How is this safe? What prevents the page to be cleared under you?
> > > > >
> > > > > If it's safe to race clear_page_dirty*() it has to be stated explicitly
> > > > > with a reason why. It's not very clear to me as it is.
> > > >
> > > > The PageDirty() optimization above is fine to race with clear the
> > > > page flag as it means it is racing after a page_mkclean() and the
> > > > GUP user is done with the page so page is about to be write back
> > > > ie if (!PageDirty(page)) see the page as dirty and skip the sdf()
> > > > call while a split second after TestClearPageDirty() happens then
> > > > it means the racing clear is about to write back the page so all
> > > > is fine (the page was dirty and it is being clear for write back).
> > > >
> > > > If it does call the sdf() while racing with write back then we
> > > > just redirtied the page just like clear_page_dirty_for_io() would
> > > > do if page_mkclean() failed so nothing harmful will come of that
> > > > neither. Page stays dirty despite write back it just means that
> > > > the page might be write back twice in a row.
> > >
> > > Forgot to mention one thing, we had a discussion with Andrea and Jan
> > > about set_page_dirty() and Andrea had the good idea of maybe doing
> > > the set_page_dirty() at GUP time (when GUP with write) not when the
> > > GUP user calls put_page(). We can do that by setting the dirty bit
> > > in the pte for instance. They are few bonus of doing things that way:
> > > - amortize the cost of calling set_page_dirty() (ie one call for
> > > GUP and page_mkclean()
> > > - it is always safe to do so at GUP time (ie the pte has write
> > > permission and thus the page is in correct state)
> > > - safe from truncate race
> > > - no need to ever lock the page
> > >
> > > Extra bonus from my point of view, it simplify thing for my generic
> > > page protection patchset (KSM for file back page).
> > >
> > > So maybe we should explore that ? It would also be a lot less code.
> >
> > Yes, please. It sounds more sensible to me to dirty the page on get, not
> > on put.
>
> I fully agree this is a desirable final state of affairs.
I'm glad to see this presented because it has crossed my mind more than once
that effectively a GUP pinned page should be considered "dirty" at all times
until the pin is removed. This is especially true in the RDMA case.
> And with changes
> to how we treat pinned pages during writeback there won't have to be any
> explicit dirtying at all in the end because the page is guaranteed to be
> dirty after a write page fault and pin would make sure it stays dirty until
> unpinned. However initially I want the helpers to be as close to code they
> are replacing as possible. Because it will be hard to catch all the bugs
> due to driver conversions even in that situation. So I still think that
> these helpers as they are a good first step. Then we need to convert
> GUP users to use them and then it is much easier to modify the behavior
> since it is no longer opencoded in two hudred or how many places...
Agreed. I continue to test with these patches and RDMA and have not seen any
problems thus far.
Ira
>
> Honza
>
> --
> Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
> SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-19 17:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-08 21:36 [PATCH v4 0/1] mm: introduce put_user_page*(), placeholder versions john.hubbard
2019-03-08 21:36 ` [PATCH v4 1/1] " john.hubbard
2019-03-19 12:04 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2019-03-19 13:47 ` Jerome Glisse
2019-03-19 14:06 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2019-03-19 14:15 ` Jerome Glisse
2019-03-19 20:01 ` John Hubbard
2019-03-20 9:28 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2019-03-19 14:14 ` Jerome Glisse
2019-03-19 14:29 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2019-03-19 15:36 ` Jan Kara
2019-03-19 9:03 ` Ira Weiny [this message]
2019-03-19 20:43 ` Tom Talpey
2019-03-19 20:45 ` Jerome Glisse
2019-03-19 20:55 ` Tom Talpey
2019-03-19 19:02 ` John Hubbard
2019-03-19 21:23 ` Dave Chinner
2019-03-19 22:06 ` Jerome Glisse
2019-03-19 23:57 ` Dave Chinner
2019-03-20 0:08 ` Jerome Glisse
2019-03-20 1:43 ` John Hubbard
2019-03-20 4:33 ` Jerome Glisse
2019-03-20 9:08 ` Ira Weiny
2019-03-20 14:55 ` William Kucharski
2019-03-20 14:59 ` Jerome Glisse
2019-03-20 0:15 ` John Hubbard
2019-03-20 1:01 ` Christopher Lameter
2019-03-19 19:24 ` John Hubbard
2019-03-20 9:40 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2019-03-08 23:21 ` [PATCH v4 0/1] " John Hubbard
2019-03-19 18:12 ` Christopher Lameter
2019-03-19 19:24 ` John Hubbard
2019-03-20 1:09 ` Christopher Lameter
2019-03-20 1:18 ` John Hubbard
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190319090322.GE7485@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com \
--to=ira.weiny@intel.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=benve@cisco.com \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=dennis.dalessandro@intel.com \
--cc=dledford@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=jglisse@redhat.com \
--cc=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
--cc=john.hubbard@gmail.com \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mike.marciniszyn@intel.com \
--cc=rcampbell@nvidia.com \
--cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=tom@talpey.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).